Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Land Use Policy
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landusepol
Identifying key factors for mobilising under-utilised low carbon land
resources: A case study on Kalimantan
MARK
⁎
Chun Sheng Goha, , Martin Jungingera, Lesley Potterb, André Faaijc, Birka Wickea
a
b
c
Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3854 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands
Australian National University, Canberra, Australia
Energy Academy Europe, University of Groningen, Blauwborgje 6, P.O. Box 9700 AE Groningen, The Netherlands
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Keywords:
Under-utilised land
Low carbon
Kalimantan
Indonesia
Small farmers
Oil palm
Mobilising under-utilised low carbon (ULC) land for future agricultural expansion helps minimising further
carbon stock loss. This study examined the regency cases in Kalimantan, a carbon loss hotspot, to understand the
key factors for mobilising ULC land via narrative interviews with a range of land-use actors and complementary
desktop analyses. The factors were broadly categorised into economic, agro-ecological, institutional and cultural
factors, which were perceived as opportunities and/or barriers by different land-uses and stakeholders (with
different business models), and can vary across regencies. Generally, oil palm was regarded by most interviewees
as an economic opportunity, reflecting that there were no other more attractive options. However, oil palm may
also be limited by various factors. For example, labour availability may greatly limit the actual amount of land
that can be mobilised in many regencies due to low population density. These economic factors were interlinked
with the agro-ecological factors, such as soil quality, which was often regarded as the reason of low economic
attractiveness. The other two categories, institutional and cultural factors, are more subtle and complex, involving socio-political elements across the hierarchy of authorities. Understanding these factors requires understanding the relationships between different stakeholders and their histories. Past analyses on ULC land
largely focus on a single crop or end-use. This study shows that mobilisation of ULC land has to depart from
analysing the specific conditions within individual regencies, especially considering the views of multiple landuse actors on different land-use options and business models. Future research is recommended to assess available
land-use options and business models by investigating how they are affected by each of the factors identified
here and accounting for the policy targets set by individual regencies (e.g. economic development or food
security) and the preference and capability of local actors.
1. Introduction
Rapid land-use change (LUC), particularly deforestation and conversion of peatland, in Kalimantan (Indonesia) has led to many environmental problems in the past decades (see e.g. Moore et al., 2013;
Tacconi et al., 2008). One of the most serious problems is the substantial loss of carbon stock from deforestation as well as peat degradation, drainage and burning which have significantly contributed
to global greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, and led to
health-threatening transboundary haze. Annual carbon stock loss in
Kalimantan contributed to roughly 30% of the total carbon stock loss of
Indonesia, ranging from 0.3 to 0.6 billion tonne CO2 per year (Abood
et al., 2015). Agricultural expansion due to increasing demand, especially for export-oriented oil palm plantation, is recognised as one of the
major culprits (Agus et al., 2013; Austin et al., 2015; Wicke et al.,
⁎
2011). In 2011, the total area planted with oil palm in Kalimantan
increased to about 3 Mha, and half of this area involved direct conversion of upland forest and wetland (Gunarso et al., 2013). Since then,
the oil palm area has increased to 3.5 Mha in 2014 (DG Estate Crops
Indonesia, 2013).
As global demand for palm oil is expected to grow further in the
future (FAOSTAT, 2016; OECD/FAO, 2016), it is necessary to ensure
that future agricultural production, especially palm oil, does not cause
further carbon stock loss. Overall, these aims can be translated into two
basic criteria when searching for potential land resources for future
agricultural activities: (i) the current agricultural productivity of the
land is insignificant or low compared to its optimal potential (i.e. there
is significant room for more production per unit land); and (ii) the level
of carbon stock is low so that land utilisation is unlikely to incur additional carbon stock loss and negative ecological impacts (e.g. forest
Corresponding author at: Copernicus Institute of Sustainable Development, Utrecht University, Heidelberglaan 2, 3854 CS, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
E-mail addresses: c.s.goh@uu.nl, gohchunsheng@hotmail.com (C.S. Goh).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.016
Received 23 February 2017; Received in revised form 4 August 2017; Accepted 11 October 2017
0264-8377/ © 2017 Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
regencies in Kalimantan. Extra attention was given to oil palm as a
predominant land-use that has experienced rapid expansion in the past
decades in Kalimantan, but other land-use options such as paddy and
other permanent crops are also discussed.
and wetland must be excluded). Such land may be broadly regarded as
under-utilised1 low carbon (ULC) land.2
Various studies have tried to quantify the physical area of ULC land
using environmental criteria (especially in terms of carbon stocks) and
agro-ecological criteria (in terms of land suitability for certain crops) at
national, regional or provincial level (e.g. Hadian et al., 2014; Gingold
et al., 2012). The analyses were performed for a specific crop (particularly oil palm, e.g. Gingold et al., 2012) or a specific end-use (particularly bioenergy, e.g. Hadian et al., 2014), but rarely linked this to
the agrarian transformation in socio-economic aspect that involves
different crops and actors across multiple sectors. Recent work by van
der Laan et al. (2016) has demonstrated an integrated approach that
also accounts for yield and supply chain improvements to assess the
technical land potential for future agricultural production covering a
range of crops. However, this study did not connect physical land
availability and suitability to socio-economic conditions. But in reality,
a wide range of socio-economic factors, e.g. labour availability and
local preferences (Baumann et al., 2011), largely define whether ULC
land can actually be mobilised3 for additional agricultural production
or not. For example, the study by Pirker et al. (2016) represents stateof-the-art quantitative analysis of potential future oil palm expansion,
yet socio-economic factors are not incorporated.
The various socio-economic factors influencing the availability of
ULC land may be perceived as either opportunities or barriers to mobilising ULC land depending on the actor (e.g. private company,
farmers, local communities, government officials), their land-use preferences (e.g. mixed crop farming or monoculture oil palm) and business models (e.g. small-scale farming or industrial plantation). The
viewpoints may also change from global, national to local level. For
example, local land-users may see local labour shortage as a major
barrier for intensification, while large-scale players may see it as an
advantage in obtaining land-use permit with less land conflicts with
local communities (Byerlee and Rueda, 2015). Many qualitative and
narrative studies have investigated the relationship between land-use
and socio-economic transformation in Kalimantan and Indonesia, e.g.
Casson (2006); Potter (2011) and McCarthy (2013). However, they are
not explicitly designed to identify ULC land, and evidence only exists
either in the form of individual case studies (e.g. Tomich et al., 1997) or
at a more aggregated level with a broader scope beyond ULC land (e.g.
Shantiko et al., 2013; Gatto et al., 2015).
Our previous work assessed ULC land resources by reconciling information available from different sources, but have not specifically
examined the individual factors that affect the mobilisation of these
land resources (Goh et al., 2017). Based on these shortcomings, this
study aims to identify the actual factors for mobilising ULC land resources, including not only agro-ecological factors, but also economic,
institutional and cultural factors. To achieve the aim of the study, information and opinions were collected from actors involved in land-use
and assessed for differences and similarities in what factors were seen
as opportunities and barriers by the different actors. This is especially
crucial to be performed within a relevant administrative level, i.e. the
regency level, at which the authorities are the most influential in the
actual implementation of land-use policies in Kalimantan. The detailed
research sites were selected in Central Kalimantan, covering four regencies with distinctive characteristics. In addition, an important factor
identified through the narrative interviews, i.e. labour availability, was
further quantitatively investigated. This part was applied to all the
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Obtaining viewpoints from land-use actors through narrative interviews
Narrative interviews were conducted to obtain positions and perspectives from different land-use actors on two research questions: (a)
what are the key factors in mobilising ULC land from local and industrial perspectives, and (b) how do these affect the mobilisation of
ULC land. Four regencies (names in italic) with distinctive characteristics were selected as case studies (Fig. 1), which broadly represent the
following cases:
(i) Subsistence farming with alternative income sources − Gunung
Mas. The regency is mainly occupied by subsistence farmers who
did not undergo agricultural modernisation but have developed
alternative income sources, i.e. small-scale (illegal) mining activities.
(ii) Integration with international market − Kotawaringin Timur. The
regency, which has access to ports, has been rapidly developing
intensive export-oriented agricultural activities, particularly industrial-scale oil palm plantations.
(iii) Urbanisation − Palangka Raya. The capital of Central Kalimantan
is a suitable example to assess the impact of urbanisation on surrounding land-use.4
(iv) Unsuitable agro-ecological conditions − Pulang Pisau. The regency
has a limited area suitable for agricultural activities due to unfavourable agro-ecological conditions (it is largely covered with
swamp and peatlands). Nevertheless, its land-use patterns have
been greatly influenced by policy intervention − it is the former
site of the Mega Rice Project (MRP)5 with a large influx of transmigrants.6
The field study was conducted by the first author, with the help of a
small local team, between November 2014 and January 2015 in these
four regencies. The potential sites (those with potentially low carbon
land covers and likely under-utilised, like dry-field grass and shrub
land) were screened based on the publicly available land cover maps
(MoF, 2015). Then, the data collection started with short surveys with
the local communities to identify places to visit and people to meet.
Decisions were also made with consideration of logistical constraints.
The targeted groups for interviews and discussions were local communities in the four regencies (Table S1). In addition, industrial perspectives were also examined through interviews with key industrial
informants who have experience with oil palm establishment in Kalimantan (Table S2). Government officers, experts and scientists were
also consulted for their views on land-use issues in relation to ULC land
in the four regencies. A few key questions were formulated (see Table 1)
to kick-start the discussion, but the interviews (mostly in the form of
group discussions) were conducted in a flexible way to avoid preconception and allow unexpected hypotheses to emerge. The team was
4
Municipalities are usually small in area. Palangka Raya is considered a special case as
a municipality with a relatively large area allocated. This situation allows the examination of how urbanisation affects LUC based on the LUC statistics at municipal level. For
municipalities with much smaller areas, the urbanisation effect spreads across neighbouring regencies and difficult to trace with aggregated data.
5
The Mega Rice Project was a failed programme initiated by the Indonesian
Government to develop one million hectares of degraded peatland for food crop production in 1996.
6
The transmigration programme is a population-relocation programme that moves
landless people mainly from the densely populated Java Island to less populous islands of
the country, e.g. Kalimantan. See e.g. Potter (2012).
1
‘Under-utilised’ is a normative notion that can be interpreted in different ways depending on e.g. socio-cultural values, economic values or legal perspectives. In this paper,
it only refers to agricultural productivity to reflect criterion (i).
2
We avoid the use of the term ‘agriculture land’ because it can be defined differently.
For example, low carbon grass land within the forest concession is not legally considered
as ‘agriculture land’.
3
‘Mobilisation’ means actions of preparing and putting into active service, making it
available, improving and coordinating its uses.
199
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
Fig. 1. Land covers of the four selected regencies in 2011 and the sub-regencies (kecamatan) visited to gather information from local stakeholders.
*Including housekeepers, senior citizens and students ( > 15 year-old)
(Source: adapted from MoF 2011).
plantation for field study (see Section 2.3) and group discussions with
managers at different levels. In addition, 5 government officials and 7
experts with various backgrounds were interviewed (Table S2).
able to communicate with the interviewees using both the common
tongue, i.e. Bahasa Indonesia, and the relevant native Dayak language.
In total, 13 sub-regencies (kecamatan) were visited (Fig. 1, see also
Fig. S1). Group discussions were conducted in 23 villages (Table S1). In
terms of geographical distribution, Kotawaringin Timur has the most
villages visited (11) while Pulang Pisau has the least (3). The majority
of the group discussions have 2–3 participants (mostly family members
or neighbours), but some involved larger groups, e.g. 10 participants in
Bapinang Hilir (Pulau Hanaut). The length of discussion also varies
from 0.5 to 2 h, and sometimes followed by short field trips organised
by the interviewees. Most interviewees have also non-agricultural income (e.g. mining or fishing), except the plasma farmers in Parenggean
who rely solely on oil palm. Regarding industrial viewpoints, key informants from two major international oil palm companies were interviewed. One company invited the first author and his team to their
2.2. Estimating labour availability per regency
Labour availability was identified by the interviewees as a major
factor for mobilising ULC land in the four regencies. However, previous
literature has not investigated how local labour availability may constrain mobilising ULC land. While we focused on four regencies to
identify the factors for mobilising ULC land, here we assessed all regencies in Kalimantan. This is because labour availability may also be a
factor for other regencies due to Kalimantan having a rather low population density (from 25 person/km2) compared to Java (1055
person/km2) and Sumatra (105 person/km2) in general (BPS, 2015,
200
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
Table 1
Key questions formulated for the interviews and group discussions.
Definition
– What land is considered “under-utilised” and/or “low carbon”?
– What size is such land? What kind of soil? Who owns these lands? What are the neighbouring land covers?
Previous land-use
- Forests: Were these lands forested in the interviewee’s memory? Since when were they deforested and by who? Why were these lands
deforested?
- Productive use: Were they being used before turning into ULC? If they are agricultural lands, what crops were planted? Why were these lands
abandoned?
- Regeneration: Was there any regeneration of forest? If not, why?
Present land-use
- Are these lands being used now for agriculture and at what frequency and intensity? What crops are planted, and by who?
Opportunities and barriers
– What are economic opportunities and barriers of ULC land?
– What are agro-ecological opportunities and barriers of ULC land?
– What are institutional opportunities and barriers of ULC land? e.g. what policies, programmes or regulations related to the ULC lands have been
introduced? What are your experience with/opinions on these?
– What are socio-cultural opportunities and barriers of ULC land?
non-oil palm. Also, the majority of the interviewees regard oil palm as
one of the agricultural activities which they will switch to and from
depending on the attractiveness.
numbers for 2010). As mentioned earlier, oil palm expansion is a major
concern in Kalimantan and therefore we specifically chose to focus the
assessment on this crop. To assess this factor, 6 steps were taken to
build two scenarios, as explained next.
Firstly, the size of the labour force for each regency was estimated.
The percentage of labour force per total population based on age
structure has not changed much between 2008 and 2012 (BPS, 2016).
For all the four provinces in Kalimantan, about 45–52% of the population were in the labour force, and 27–33% were children under 15year-old. The rest were those considered eligible to work (i.e. > 15
year-old) but are currently not in the labour force, e.g. housekeepers,
senior citizens and students. Based on the population statistics
(2008–2012) reported by BPS Kalbar (2014); BPS Kalsel (2014); BPS
Kalteng (2014) and BPS Kaltim (2014), the population per regency was
linearly forecasted until 2030. The year 2030 was chosen because this
year marks the end of the life cycle of most oil palm area in Kalimantan,
which was established in the early 2000′s. The situation of land-use by
then will largely depend on global palm oil supply and demand. Conservatively, the percentage of labour force for all regencies in Kalimantan was assumed to be 45%, and the size of labour force per regency in 2030 was estimated by multiplying this percentage with the
forecasted population as in Eq. (1). It was also assumed that 33% will be
children (< 15 year-old) and the rest (> 15 year-old) will not be in the
labour force.
Labour force per regency(Lf) = Regency population × 45%
Labour force per regency in agricultural sec tor (Lt) = Lf
(2a)
Labour force per regency in agricultural sector (Lt)
Income from agricultural sector
= Lf ×
Total household income
(2b)
Thirdly, for each scenario, the labourers who would already be
working on existing large-scale plantations were deducted from the
labour force. Budidarsono et al. (2011) estimated that the labour requirement of a plantation during a 25-year cycle ranged from 59 to 144
person-days per ha per year, depending on the age of the oil palm trees.
This was translated to labour requirement factors of about 0.2–0.5
person per ha, considering 300 working days per year. Taking the
average value of 0.35, this factor was multiplied with the area of largescale plantation in each regency in 2011 to deduce the number of labourers on existing plantations (MoF, 2015; Goh et al., 2017) as in Eq.
(3):
Labourers on existing plantation (Le)
= Area of large scale plantation in each regency × 0.35
(3)
Fourthly, the labour requirement for mobilising ULC land was calculated with a demonstration on oil palm. WRI (2012) provided estimates of low carbon land suitable for oil palm with elevation < 1000m,
soil depth > 75 cm, soil acidity < pH 7.3, slope < 30%, water resource
buffers > 100m, and conservation buffer > 1000m. These estimates,
however, did not consider labour availability as a constraint to how
much of ULC land may be mobilised. Labour requirement was calculated if these lands (excluding those that were already cultivated with
oil palm, as calculated in Goh et al., 2017) were to be converted into oil
palm plantation, by multiplying the area per regency by the labour
requirement factor of 0.35 person per ha (at industrial efficiency as of
the existing large-scale plantations) as in Eq. (4):
(1)
One limitation is that the number of labourers in non-agricultural
sectors was not known. To address this limitation, two scenarios were
built in the second step. For Scenario 1, Eq. (2a) was employed, where
the case of maximum labour availability was used, assuming that becoming an oil palm smallholder (with intensification) or working on an
oil palm plantation is more attractive than subsistence and non-agricultural activities (e.g. mining, logging or working in the cities). For
Scenario 2, the labour force diverted to non-agricultural sectors was
determined by comparing the income ratio from agricultural and nonagricultural sources using data in 2013 from the household survey by
BPS (2013a) as shown in Eq. (2b). The underlying assumption is that
the labourers will divide their manpower in the two sectors simply
based on economic considerations. For example, the higher rates of
urbanisation and mining in East Kalimantan may largely distract many
labourers from being available for working on oil palm plantations. This
is, however, a simplification as we are unable to model factors like
mobility and lifestyle that affects the choices. Naturally, this scenario
will lead to a significantly lower labour availability than in Scenario 1.
As the aim of this analysis is to further refine the maximal area of land
that can be used for agricultural activities with oil palm as an example,
we did not further divide the agricultural labour force into oil palm and
Labour requirement (Lr)
= Area of suitable land in each regency(excluding planted area)
× 0.35
(4)
Else
The fifth step, as shown in Eq. (5), was to calculate whether the
labour force in 2030 (excluding those who would be working on existing plantations) will be enough to fulfil the new labour requirement.
The step was repeated for both Scenario 1 and 2 using Lt1 and Lt2 as Lt
in Eq. (5), respectively.
If (Lt − Le) > Lr
201
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
Table 2
Identification of factors in mobilising ULC land and specification of these factors in terms of opportunities and barriers to a specific land-use or in general by interviewees.
Legends: Dark grey cells represent opportunities, light grey cells represent both opportunities and barriers, white cells represent barriers, and dashes represent no opinions or no issues.
Note on how to read the Table: Taking the case of Gunung Mas as an example, ‘labour availability’ is deemed a barrier in general (for all land-uses), while ‘logistics’ is deemed a barrier for
planting oil palm. For the latter, no other crops were mentioned by the interviewees.
more clarification on this criterion, including field trips to identify some
low carbon sites, so that they can respond to the questions specifically
referring to those types of land. This is crucial for clarification on excluding forests because the definition of ‘forest’ can be defined differently under different framework (e.g. land legally categorised as
‘forested land’ is not necessary forest and vice versa). This is also applicable to swamp land, where some respondents have insisted that
degraded peatland (which is largely shown as swamp grass and shrub
on the maps in Fig. 1) should also be taken into consideration. While we
do not rule out the possibility that degraded peatland might be used in
sustainable ways by the communities for productive purpose, its use
and environmental impacts are contested. We leave this discussion out
from this paper as it requires further agro-ecological investigation and
it is not within the original scope to look at low carbon sites.
For the second criterion, ‘under-utilisation’, most respondents
agreed that it is about agricultural productivity, but some have also
pointed out that lands that are not being used may not be strictly
considered ‘under-utilised’, because land should ‘get some rest’ from
time to time before the next cycle of use (this actually refers to their
culture of shifting agriculture). The latter was described as a cultural
factor under section 3.2.6.
Labourers available for mobilizing land suitable for oil palm (excluding
existing plantation) (La) = Lr
(5a)
Labour surplus (Ls)=(Lt − Le) − Lr
(5b)
Non-local labourers required to fully mobilise all land suitable for oil
palm (Lel) = 0
(5c)
Else
Labourers available for mobilizing land suitable for oil
plam (excluding existing plantation)(La) = (Lt − Le)
Labour surplus (Ls) = 0
(5d)
(5e)
Non − local labourers required to fully mobilise all land suitable for
oil palm (Lel) = Lr − (Lt − Le)
(5f)
Finally, the sixth step, the maximum amount of land suitable for oil
palm that can be fully mobilised per regency in 2030 with forecasted
labour availability in both Scenario 1 and 2 was estimated. This was
done by dividing the labourers available per regency (La) by the labour
requirement factor as in Eq. (6).
3.2. Key factors for mobilising ULC land in the four regencies
Maximum land that can be fully mobilized with local labour
= La/0.35
3.2.1. Overview of the key factors
The factors were broadly categorised into economic, agro-ecological, institutional and cultural factors. Within each of these categories,
interviewees pointed out that a specific factor could be an opportunity
and/or a barrier for specific land-use (or in general). For example, labour availability was regarded as a general barrier to all land-use in
Gunung Mas, but was seen as a more specific barrier to paddy cultivation in Kotawaringin Timur due to labour competition with oil palm
plantation. Table 2 summarises the key factors identified by the interviewees from the four regencies as well as by the industrial informants
(6)
3. Results and discussions
3.1. Definition of ULC land
The results of the interviews indicated that the interviewees, especially the local communities, do not have clear opinions on the criterion
of ‘low carbon’. During the interviews, it was often required to give
202
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
3.2.2. Economic factors
3.2.2.1. Labour availability. This factor was found to strongly influence
the land-use intensity of ULC land (also reported by Ananda and Herath
2003; Baumann et al., 2011). Labour scarcity was indicated as a barrier
for mobilising ULC land in Kalimantan. Three phenomena were
observed from the field trips: (i) labour competition between
agricultural and non-agricultural activities, (ii) labour competition
between different agricultural activities, and (iii) uneven labour
distribution between regencies due to urbanisation. Phenomenon (i)
was prominent in Gunung Mas due to income opportunities from
(illegal) mining, which reduce interest in cash crop farming.
Phenomenon (ii) was represented by the case observed in Pulau
Hanaut (the only part in Kotawaringin Timur that still has paddy
fields), where young labourers preferred to work on industrial
plantations for better income instead of staying with traditional
paddy farming. Consequently, agricultural land was abandoned due
to lack of labourers. In contrast, phenomenon (iii) was found when
comparing the general situation in most places with the trend in
Rakumpit (Palangka Raya) where young people were struggling with
unemployment in facing rapid urbanisation, and have no land to farm
(mostly sold to outsiders). This illustrates a highly uneven labour
availability across the regencies.
Overall, these findings suggest that parallel income opportunities
(e.g. mining), food security (e.g. maintaining paddy production) and
labourers’ preference (e.g. preference to stay in an urban area) are three
local factors that need to be further explored on regency-by-regency
basis to better estimate the labour availability for mobilising ULC land.
This factor was less of a concern by the industry as they often source
their labourers from other Indonesian islands.8 For exploratory purpose, labour availability per regency was estimated in Section 3.2 for
the case of oil palm cultivation on ULC land under industrial management in all of Kalimantan to estimate how labour availability influences
the mobilisation of ULC land.
on large-scale industrial oil palm establishment; more details for this
classification are provided in the remainder of Section 3.
In general, all interviewees understood the two criteria proposed to
define ULC land, but they also pinpointed that sometimes ULC land
cannot be clearly distinguished from ‘regularly’ used land as land-use is
dynamic and different land-uses interweave with each other. For many
cases, the discussion on ULC land can thus not be isolated from the
general land-use dynamics in that area.
Below, we first discuss commonalities and differences in perspectives from different actors. In the following subsections, we then discuss
each of the identified factors and whether they are seen as opportunities
or barriers and cross-checked with literature. References are given
when the information is from the literature; all other findings are from
the interviews.
Many common views were observed. For example, many interviewees, whether industrial players, independent oil palm smallholders,
plasma farmers,7 or small farmers who practise mixed-crop farming,
have regarded oil palm as an economic opportunity. This reflects that at
that moment there were not many other economically attractive landuse options for them. While paddy is widely grown in Indonesia
(especially in Java) as the major food staple, improving food security
was less a concern among the interviewees in the four regencies, except
some Javanese paddy farmers in Kotawaringin Timur, who practise
wet-field paddy farming, and raised their concerns that more and more
paddy fields may turn into ULC land. Agro-forestry, which is highly
advocated by researchers and NGOs as a suitable land-use option for
future expansion on ULC land (see e.g. De Foresta and Michon, 1996;
Roshetko et al., 2007), was seldom discussed by the interviewees. Some
of them are aware of the concept, but they do not deem it economically
attractive, as returns are lower than for oil palm production, and any
added value for e.g. organic production generally does not reach them.
However, findings show that opportunities and barriers can be
different from one regency to another for different land-use options. For
example, labour availability was found to be a barrier by small farmers
in Gunung Mas which has not experienced any significant influx of
migrants, but it was mentioned as an opportunity by their counterparts
in Palangka Raya due to a relatively high unemployment rate as part of
recent urbanisation. Meanwhile, the industrial informants have also
shared different views on certain factors. Labour availability has not
been an issue for the industry (at the moment) as extra-local labourers
can be introduced from other islands.
One should be noted that several factors are also applicable to all
types of land. Exclusive emphasis on tackling some of these factors,
specifically labour availability, logistics, and extra-local involvement
and financing, may trigger unwanted land-use change. For example,
bringing in people and capital into the fragmented ULC areas or
building more roads to connect these areas to cities and ports may
expose high carbon land surrounding the areas to the risks of carbon
stock loss. Therefore, tapping opportunities of mobilising ULC land
must be complementary to and integrated with other key land-use policies throughout the landscape, especially those addressing unsustainable land-use, such as Indonesia Forest Moratorium which prevent conversion of high carbon stock forests (Murdiyarso et al., 2011).
Addressing these factors must be viewed as parts of the broader process
of promoting sustainable land-use practices, in which an increasing
proportion of agricultural activities are shifted from high carbon land to
low carbon land. For example, improving institutional capacities can
help not only facilitating the mobilisation of ULC land, but also
strengthening the implementation of all land-use policies from a landscape perspective.
3.2.2.2. Land trading. Despite uncertainties in land tenure, speculative
land trading was frequently found in Kalimantan (see also Fox et al.,
2009; Li 2007). In Palangka Raya, opportunities for local communities
to sell their land at higher price to extra-local buyers motivated the
villagers to expand further into forests, especially those located at the
edges of city centre, roadsides or land that is expected to be converted
to oil palm concessions. They let shrub and grass grow, and only
sporadically planted rubber and fruit trees to mark their ownership (see
also Potter 1997; Tyynela et al., 2002; Fairhurst et al., 2010). Many of
these lands were sold to extra-local buyers who do not intend to
perform agricultural activities but speculate on the land price to
increase. Similar cases were also observed in the outskirts of Sampit
(the capital of Kotawaringin Timur), where a large area of deforested
land at the edge of the city was systematically divided into small pieces
and sold to the public as a form of investment rather than for
agricultural purposes. These speculation activities is in fact a
significant driver of the formation of ULC land.
From the industrial perspectives, the uncertainties and confusion in
land tenure have been the main barriers to obtaining a continuous area
of ULC land for large-scale deployment. Multiple claims on the same
pieces of lands have led to serious social conflicts, especially between
private enterprises and local communities (see sub-section ‘Socio-cultural factors’). Due to uncertainties in land tenure and rapid land
trading, it is difficult to distinguish ULC land owned by local communities and extra-local speculators. When developing strategies for using
ULC land, clarification of land ownership and the roles of different landuse actors is critical.
7
Plasma schemes are outgrower schemes designed to assist small farmers by attaching
them to large companies that provide technical and financial supports to them during the
establishment of oil palm. Later on, they become independent growers that sell their fresh
fruit bunches to the company.
8
For example, the industrial plantation visited (see Section 6.3.3) has about 74% of the
staff come from the other islands.
203
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
for large-scale, small-scale or conservation.
3.2.2.3. Logistics. In all the four regencies, large areas of land along the
main roads were found deforested but left unused by the local
communities (or sold to extra-local speculators already), speculating
that the land price will go up later. However, roads also represent entry
points into modern agricultural practices, e.g. access to knowledge,
fertilisers and fuels, which stimulates intensification. The case in Tewah
(Gunung Mas) where farmers have given up intensification due to poor
logistics and lack of access to fertilisers has supported the claim of
Garrity et al. (1997); Garrity (1995) that the pathways of intensification
are determined by access to fertilisers. Also in Lampuyang
(Kotawaringin Timur), although many of the farmers were equipped
with hand tractors, they did not have a secure and stable fuel supply
due to poor logistics.9 The logistics have been gradually upgraded in the
past decades, but it still requires further improvement. Low quality
roads may not be functional all the time. For example, in Gunung Mas, a
large part of the regency will be isolated after heavy rain because it is
too dangerous to travel on roads full with potholes. A contradictory
case is Palangka Raya – where the income per hectare of land occupied
for agriculture is the highest (about USD 1300/ha) among the four
regencies, far higher than the other three (the second highest is
Kotawaringin Timur, amounted to about 600 USD/ha) (BPS, 2013b).
This is likely due to urbanisation.
These findings are in line with the literature – it was widely documented that the availability of a quality road network has effects on
both deforestation and utilisation of grasslands (e.g. Laurance et al.,
2015; Tomich et al., 1997). Particularly, roads constructed for logging
were often followed by both local communities and migrants to expand
their agricultural activities (Fox et al., 2009). This was, however, less
discussed by the industrial informants as they perceived road building
as part of the cost of deployment.
Since logistics is the key determinant for mobilising ULC land particularly for small farmers, spatially explicit mapping of road distribution, road quality, elevation and other factors that affect logistics is
required to better evaluate land accessibility.
3.2.2.5. Profitability, flexibility and maintenance. Profitability, largely
reflected by commodity prices, is the key factor that encourages or
prohibits cash crops intensification and expansion on ULC land.12 In
Kalimantan, prices of FFB were more attractive than other cash crops to
small farmers. In Manuhing and Kurun (Gunung Mas), independent
small oil palm cultivations have emerged because the profitability
appeared to be very attractive to them. However, the oil palm industry
representatives pinpointed that this crop could be economically risky
for independent small farmers because of its ‘inflexibility’ − it requires
longer waiting time before harvest but draws large inputs at the early
stage, and its price is fluctuating.
Despite the fact that other options like agro-forestry are economically less attractive, maintaining flexibility with multiple crops may be
a better strategy for small actors in long term. For the case observed in
Kahayan Tengah (Pulang Pisau), oil palm was generally planted as an
additional crop (in combination with rubber and paddy) which generates easy income (although the productivity is relatively low compared to those under industrial management, it is still profitable).
Small-scale monoculture oil palm cultivations may face the risk of being
abandoned (and hence become ULC land) when palm oil price is low
and small farmers cannot afford the upkeep anymore. To avoid such a
situation, a long-term economically resilient land-use strategy should
be adopted for mobilisation of ULC land for different land-use actors.
3.2.2.6. Extra-local involvement and financing. Intensification requires
skills and investments, but small farmers (especially the indigenous
groups, Dayaks) generally lack both. For example in Kahayan Tengah
(Pulang Pisau), although the farmers have gained access to better seeds
and fertilisers due to its proximity to the city of Palangka Raya, they
lacked the cash to acquire them as well as the skills to better manage
their farms. Industrial establishment of oil palm on ULC land with small
farmers attached to it is one option which provides investment and skill
that local communities lack. This option has received different
responses from the local communities.13 In Tewah and Manuhing
(Gunung Mas), some Dayak villagers were ready to accept large-scale
development in their area as they were generally land-rich, yet struggle
to manage such large areas of unused land. In Sebangau (Palangka
Raya), widespread negative experiences from the neighbouring areas
with large-scale investment, such as empty promises and violent
evictions, have reduced the willingness of the Dayak communities to
be open for extra-local schemes. In Banamatingang (Pulang Pisau), the
Dayak villagers have been struggling with negotiation with the large oil
palm corporation − on the one hand, they hoped to bring in investment
for development; on the other hand, they had little trust in the
companies.14 In many cases, claiming and selling more land to extralocal buyers was the option that provided them the quickest cash.
The industrial informants presented a different perspective − they
claimed that successful plasma schemes can only be realised if a third
party such as World Bank (as in the past) or local banks are willing to
(co-)fund the scheme. This is, however, not in line with the legal requirement as they are obliged to provide assistance to smallholders,
either 20% of their land or their profits (Potter 2016). On the government side, the officials have emphasized that their fiscal capacity is
3.2.2.4. Land fragmentation and scale. Scale is a key economic factor for
cash crops like oil palm. For industrial scale, a large continuous
concession with area > 10 kha (with a 60 t FFB per hour mill) is
more economically attractive compared to a small concession (with a
30 t FFB per hour mill). A senior industrial representative has
emphasized the issue with large-scale investment in Central
Kalimantan – most grass or shrub lands exist as small fragmented
areas. Meanwhile, independent small farmers in Kalimantan, in the
absence of their own mills, are highly dependent on large companies to
buy their fruits.10 While a few independent small farmers in West
Kalimantan have managed to co-operatively build their own mills,
‘stand-alone’ mills that cater to the needs of independent farmers have
not yet emerged in the four studied regencies.11 Still, in Palangka Raya,
Pulang Pisau and Kotawaringin Timur, opportunities for profitable,
independent, small-scale oil palm cultivation already exist. Farmers in
Pulang Pisau claimed that it was an easy business for them because
middlemen will come and harvest the fruits themselves – what they
needed to do was simply to grow some oil palm in their farms. Also in
Gunung Mas, some independent pioneering farmers with 5–10 ha of
immature oil palm have expressed their confidence in small-scale oil
palm. From an environmental viewpoint, a land-use expert expressed
that a lot of ULC land may also exist in patches interwoven with forests
or wetlands, and may be more suitable for conservation and
reforestation. Therefore, mobilisation strategies of ULC land should
also be designed based on the size and continuity of the area, whether
12
A notable comparative example is the case of cultivating Imperata-cassava on degraded acid upland soils in Lampung (Sumatra) reported by Purnomosidhi et al. (2005).
In that case, the farmers abandoned their lands when they lost the market access due to
the influence of EU quotas for imports of tapioca as fodder.
13
With the exposure to modern lifestyle, it would be misleading to assume all the
indigenous communities prefer to live in accordance with the forest. Most villagers interviewed voiced their demand for pragmatic solutions that could address poverty and
improve their living standard.
14
They complained that companies took control of their lands but did not keep their
promises e.g. providing facilities and services
9
The farmers also do not receive fuel subsidies as in the transportation sector.
Plasma farmers are bound to sell their fruits to the attached plantation, but independent farmers are not.
11
Independent mills are common in Riau and Jambi.
10
204
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
logging in the past decades, but are still included in the ‘forest zone’,
such as the cases in Tewah (Gunung Mas) and Pulau Hanaut
(Kotawaringin Timur). Also, some lands remained uncultivated after
deforestation although these were originally given for oil palm
concessions (see also Sandker et al., 2007; Goh et al., 2017). In 2011,
about 32% of the 0.7 Mha oil palm concessions in Kotawaringin Timur
were uncultivated land with sparse vegetation (Goh et al., 2017). These
‘logged’ over lands are ‘locked’ up from further utilisation. Several
active attempts to reclaim land ownership by the indigenous
communities were observed during the field visit. For example, the
villagers in Tewah have demanded the 6000 ha of former timber
concession nearby their villages to be freed up for large-scale oil
palm plantation. A movement at provincial level, namely ‘Dayak
Misik’, was initiated to obtain land rights for indigenous communities,
including lands located within the ‘forest zone’ and concessions.
Previously, a top-down effort was made by WRI and Sekala to
demonstrate a land swap to unlock low carbon lands from the ‘forest
zone’ to divert industrial oil palm development on these lands, but it
was stalled due to complexity and cost of the legal process (Rosenbarger
et al., 2013). In 2014, the Indonesian Ministry of Home Affairs, Forestry
and Public Works, together with National Land Agency (BPN) have
promulgated the ‘Procedure for settlement of land tenure in the forest
zone’ which allows land located within the ‘forest zone’ to be legally
claimed by individuals or communities (Kompas, 2015). This has
opened a door to mobilise ULC lands which were previously locked in
concessions. However, the new law does not distinguish ULC lands and
forests, and no rules or guidance are given to secure sustainable landuse or prohibit land selling. Furthermore, it is unclear how to account
for such land if the land is claimed by multiple actors. For example, the
transmigrants in Parenggean (Kotawaringin Timur) who participated in
a plasma scheme, as well as the industrial representatives, have argued
that the same piece of land may be claimed multiple times by different
people, i.e. the land inside concessions may be still occupied by a group
of farmers although some other farmers have already ‘sold’ it. For this
type of ULC land, sorting out the complexity of land-use rights is of the
highest priority to clarify if a piece of ULC land is considered ‘available’
or not and to ‘whom’ it is available.
very limited. Worse still, the government has no clear guidelines on
how the partnership should be formed, but allows the companies to
determine the participation of the smallholders (see also Potter 2016).
This complex situation points towards a key aspect for mobilising
ULC land – with what business models can these ULC land be effectively
mobilised? This requires more local-specific assessments to search for
comprehensive strategies that are suitable for individual regencies. An
example of extra-local involvement is knowledge transfer and financial
support from trustworthy independent sources.
3.2.3. Agro-ecological factors
3.2.3.1. Soil quality. Soil quality of ULC land in Kalimantan, which is
generally lower than on the other islands (see also Mulyani and Sarwani
2013), was often regarded as a key constraint of intensification by most
interviewees.15 For small farmers who lack capital and knowledge, the
solution is to expand their farms to a larger area to compensate for the
low return. Under industrial management, the problem can be reduced
with intensive agro-inputs and proper practices, but small farmers
cannot afford this. Some industrial informants had the impression that
the economic return is lower as higher agro-inputs are required. It is
therefore important to account for the impact of soil quality on the
economic attractiveness and feasibility of mobilising ULC land.
3.2.3.2. Uncontrolled fire. In all the studied regencies (also generally in
Central Kalimantan), fire has played a major role in the formation of
ULC lands. Fire usually occurs naturally in the dry season, but could
also be deliberately initiated by the farmers to prepare land for new
farming cycles (see Tomich et al., 1997; Murdiyarso et al., 2004). Due
to uncontrolled fire, local farmers have been losing their farmlands. The
worst case was observed in Rakumpit (Palangka Raya) where farmers
abandoned or sold almost all of their lands because their farms were
destroyed by fire. This is a vicious cycle − those abandoned lands are
often occupied by alang-alang grass which is very vulnerable to fire. The
problem was further exacerbated when the fire spreads onto peatlands,
making it even more difficult to put out. Interviewees reflected that
there was lack of proper plans and tools to overcome this problem. In
recent years, the provincial government of Central Kalimantan has set
very strict ‘no burning’ rules. Local communities were well-informed
and deliberate large-scale burning has been reduced, but some farmers
still insisted to use fire for land preparation. When designing
mobilisation strategies for ULC land, risk of fire should be taken into
account, and effective fire control should be given priority.
3.2.4.2. Institutional capacities. Interview with representatives from
national government agencies revealed that the implementation of
national policies at regency level has been difficult. A representative
from the Ministry of Agriculture was disappointed about the fact that
their policy recommendations were often not taken on by the local
authorities due to lack of trust. Similar situations are also reported in
literature, see e.g. Austin et al. (2014) which reported that capacity and
understanding among key agencies was low. In contrast, local
authorities in Kotawaringin Timur as well as the provincial
government have argued that they have very limited fiscal capacity
to support these policies − most programmes were usually
discontinued after the first few years. The villagers pinpointed that
they have to abandon their farms after the programmes were ended due
to lack of financial capabilities to maintain. Many interviewees also
emphasized their worries about corruption in the land and agriculture
sectors. From the industrial viewpoint, the main institutional barrier to
mobilising ULC lands was the rules (and enforcement) that vary from
one regency to another. It is therefore necessary to take into account the
capability and efficiency of regency authorities when designing regency
strategies to mobilise ULC land. Especially, programmes to support the
small farmers need substantial financial and technical support as well as
proper monitoring.
3.2.3.3. Poor water management. One key reason for abandoning paddy
fields or failed harvests is poor water management. During the field
trip, interviewees from paddy-oriented villages in Teluk Sampit and
Pulau Hanaut (Kotawaringin Timur) and Sebangau (Palangka Raya)
have specifically complained about this issue. It does not only cause low
productivity due to absence of irrigation, but drought and flooding have
also frequently destroyed their harvest. In Bereng Bengkel of Sebangau,
the villagers have lost both their farmlands and access to the city due to
frequent floods. They have to rely only on fishing and collecting forest
products to support their lives. This suggests that paddy field in
Kalimantan may still have a large room for intensification, and be
prioritised among the ULC land for increasing food production while
preventing further expansion especially on forested land.
3.2.4. Institutional factors
3.2.4.1. Logged and locked. In Central Kalimantan, vast areas of former
timber concessions have turned into grassland or shrubs since the rapid
3.2.5. Cultural factors
3.2.5.1. Land-use preference. A cultural barrier is the farmers’ resistance
to ‘new’ agricultural practices to increase production through
intensification. In the four regencies, there are clear distinction in
land-use practices between indigenous communities and (trans)
15
Exceptionally, there was an area of unused land in the southern part of Kotawaringin
Timur which was deemed high quality land for paddy by the interviewees. For this case,
the area was economically attractive to be utilised but the factors like land tenure and
labour shortage have prevented its use.
205
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
plantations, and it is questionable whether this labour force will be
interested to move to the other regencies as farmers.
In Scenario 1, the maximum amount of ULC land that can be mobilised with optimistically forecasted levels of labour availability in
2030 is 11 Mha, about two-thirds of the 14 Mha of land in Kalimantan
considered suitable for oil palm according to WRI (2012). Compare to
2011 (see Fig. S2), this maximum amount of ULC land that can be
mobilised has increased significantly up to almost 40% due to population growth. This maximum estimate is possible only due to optimistic
conditions that the new cultivation is operated at industrial efficiency
(0.35 person/ha) and all the labour force is attracted to the oil palm
sector. In reality, the amount of land that can be effectively mobilised
could be much lower considering actual labour efficiency and preferences to participate in agricultural activities. This is illustrated in
Scenario 2, where part of the labour force is diverted to non-agricultural sector. The maximum amount of ULC land that can be mobilised dropped to only slightly more than 7 Mha. If the labour requirement becomes higher due to lower efficiency (0.5 person/ha as the
minimum requirement reported by Budidarsono et al., 2011), the estimate would further drop to < 7 Mha.
In 2006–2010, about 1.8 Mha of oil palm was planted in Kalimantan
(0.35 Mha per year) (Gunarso et al., 2013). At this pace, it would take
more than 40 years to have all the 14 Mha of ULC areas that are suitable
for oil palm fully intensively used. But it should be noted that these
expansions are concentrated in several regencies. For example, about
0.3 Mha of oil palm has been planted in Kotawaringin Timur in that
period (about 18% of the total regency area) (Goh et al., 2017). For this
regency, Fig. 2 shows that in the next decade, at maximum 0.4 Mha out
of the 0.6 Mha of suitable ULC land could be planted and managed with
local labourers.
This analysis shows how the labour factor limits the mobilisation of
ULC land taking industrial oil palm as an example. This may vary significantly if the ULC land in a regency would be used for a combination
of crops with different types of management. For example, paddy cultivation requires about 0.3 person/ha if it is managed as the lowland
rice field in Java (Gérard and Ruf, 2001). The choice of land-use very
much depends on market and policy drivers, as well as a range of local
factors such as those identified in section 3.1. Furthermore, it should be
noted that labourers remaining in agricultural sector may also remain
in or be attracted to activities outside ULC land − some may be forced
to stick to their farms on peatland as these are their only property, and
some may prefer to keep their shifting agricultural practices.
Overall, Kalimantan has an uneven labour distribution across regencies and the current forecast is limited by uncertainties in labour
mobility over time. This implies that it is important for a regency to
consider multiple land-use options (which require different number of
labourers) and business models (which have different levels of attractiveness and suitability for multiple land-use actors) when planning for
utilising the ULC land resources.
migrants (mainly Javanese). The indigenous Dayaks usually practise
rotational swiddens, while Javanese (trans)migrants tend to establish
paddy fields with cattle stall-fed with alang-alang or participate in
small-scale oil palm plasma schemes. Most interviewees, including
indigenous people themselves, agreed that the indigenous communities
were not used to intensified farming or working on plantations. Most
Dayak interviewees described that they were ‘spoiled by the enormous
natural resources’, and thus had no motivation to intensification. This is
different for (trans)migrants from Java, who have a stronger sense of
land ownership (see also Purnomosidhi et al., 2005; Whitten 1987;
Potter 1997). The Dayaks prefer to develop and manage agro-forestry,
but they also tend to make quick money by selling their lands.16
However, some of them also possessed a different economic vision. For
example, a Dayak farmer who owns 10 ha of oil palm in Kurun (Gunung
Mas) has purposely learnt the production techniques from a large-scale
plantation, and hired a professional company for fertilisation. Many of
his peers were also observing his results before they may follow his
move. While more integration is expected in the future, many Dayaks
still showed deference to intensive agriculture.17 This is also reflected in
Kotawaringin Timur: Although the regency has a relatively large supply
of domestic labour, most labourers on plantations are hired from other
Indonesian islands. Transmigrants have been introduced in the oil palm
plasma schemes as outgrowers as seen in Parenggean (Kotawaringin
Timur), but they have been entangled with serious land disputes with
the indigenous people. As land-use activities in Kalimantan are largely
characterised by the differences in preference and interest of different
ethnic groups, ethnic distribution is a factor that should be carefully
analysed. Of particular interest is whether these cultural factors provide
opportunities or barriers to the mobilisation of ULC land.
3.3. Labour availability: a case study on oil palm
In section 3.1, labour availability was identified as a possible constraint for the utilisation of ULC land. In this section, we explore
quantitatively for which regencies of Kalimantan this could be a serious
constraint, assuming that all ULC land suitable for oil palm would actually be taken into use (see Section 2.2). Figs. 2 and 3 show the estimates of maximum labour availability in each regency in Kalimantan
forecasted for the year 2030 if all lands suitable for oil palm are utilised
(Panel A) and maximum land that can be mobilised as limited by local
labour availability (Panel B), sorted by the area of suitable land per
regency, in two different scenarios. For Scenario 1, where the whole
labour force is assumed to take part in the agricultural sector, the top 20
regencies with large areas of land suitable for oil palm are mostly short
of local labour (or just have merely sufficient labourers) by 2030 to
fully mobilise the suitable lands, only 5 of them (Kutai Kartanegara,
Seruyan, Pasir, Sambas and Tanah Bumbu) have sufficient labour
availability. In Scenario 2, where part of the labour force is diverted to
non-agricultural sector, the labour shortage is even more prominent,
and only 3 out of the top 20 regencies have very small labour surpluses
(Pasir, Sambas and Tanah Bumbu).
Labour surpluses are mostly concentrated in regencies with small
areas of suitable land. Almost all of these regencies are either large
cities, industrial towns like Bontang, oil mining and business centres
like Balikpapan and Tarakan, or university cities like Banjar Baru.18
But, there are also larger regencies like Pulang Pisau which is largely
covered by swampland or Malinau which is largely forested. These
regencies are largely unsuitable as sites for large-scale oil palm
4. Conclusion and recommendation
This study identified key factors that influence the mobilisation of
ULC land based on the direct inputs of local and industrial land-use
actors and cross-checking the findings with literature, taking four regencies with distinctive characteristics in Kalimantan as case studies.
The interviewees identified a spectrum of factors which create various
opportunities and/or barriers to them, depending on the land-use options and business models.
The importance of economic factors were widely recognised by the
interviewees. For example, they generally agreed that labour availability
is a major factor in Kalimantan due to its low population density. An
additional desktop analysis on labour availability shows that labour
distribution among the regencies is largely uneven, and greatly limits
the actual amount of land that can be mobilised in some regencies. The
discussions on agro-ecological factors are more technically oriented.
16
The situation is different in West Kalimantan, e.g. in Sanggau where most of the oil
palm smallholders are Dayaks (Potter and Badcock, 2007).
17
In Kahayan Tengah (Pulang Pisau), the Dayak village chief pinpointed that many
villagers do not believe that using better (and more costly) seeds and fertilisers will result
in higher yields.
18
Educational establishments located in the cities are indicated by the high numbers of
people over age 15 but not in the work force, i.e. students.
206
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
Fig. 2. Scenario 1: Estimates of maximum labour availability in each regency in Kalimantan forecasted for the year 2030 if all lands suitable for oil palm are utilised (Panel A) and
maximum land that can be mobilised as limited by local labour availability (Panel B) (sorted by the area of suitable land) given none of the labour force is diverted to non-agricultural
sector.
Fig. 3. Scenario 2: Estimates of maximum labour availability in each regency in Kalimantan forecasted for the year 2030 if all lands suitable for oil palm are to be utilised (Panel A) and
maximum land that can be mobilised as limited by local labour availability (Panel B) (sorted by the area of suitable land) given part of the labour force is diverted to non-agricultural
sector.
The barriers, such as soil quality and uncontrolled fire, were often associated with low economic attractiveness and land abandonment by the
interviewees. Tailor-made strategies based on local agro-ecological
conditions are required to recover the productivity of these areas. The
other two categories, i.e. institutional and cultural factors, are more
subtle and complex as they involve more socio-political elements across
207
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
preference of the local land-users, and their capability in adopting new
business models. Careful considerations on local suitability, especially
understanding the land-use dynamics (why is it under-utilised), and
innovation in land-use planning (e.g. swapping of ULC land in the
concession with high carbon stock land outside the concession) is thus
required to answer these questions. This can be formulated in a matrix
as shown in Table 3. For individual regencies, such a matrix can be
developed through multi-stakeholder’s surveys, workshops or collaboration to ensure different perspectives are taken into consideration.
In addition, the environmental risks accompanied by the choices of
land-use option and business model have to be thoroughly examined.
This paper started out on the premise that ULC land can be mobilised
whilst minimising or even mitigating further carbon stock loss, but this
needs to be safe-guarded. Also, other environmental impacts (e.g.
provision of ecosystem services, loss of biodiversity) need to be assessed
on a local level. Existing sustainability measures, such as the RSPO
standards, albeit designed for other purposes instead of ULC land exploration, could be partly borrowed as a basis to mitigate environmental and partly socio-economic risks. Employing certification
schemes like this as guidelines for mobilising ULC land, however, may
need significant modification as they are mostly designed specifically
for a crop (e.g. RSPO) or an end-market (e.g. certification schemes for
biofuel). ULC land, however, can be used in various ways for different
crops which serve multiple end-markets. Monitoring the environmental
impact of using ULC land has to cover the entire landscape and how the
different types of land-use − from small household mixed farming to
industrial monoculture – can co-exist and interact.
The social risks, such as the risk associated with governance in terms
of corruption and rent-seeking, should be carefully examined as this
will undermine the benefits for the society or even trigger conflicts
when large-scale investment takes place on under-utilised land that
may be occupied and used in an extensive manner. This is largely linked
to the legal aspect, not only in terms of the formulation of local rights,
land-use rights and other regulations, but also in terms of their enforcement.
Additional guidelines in an economic sense are also needed for ULC
land exploration to make mobilising of ULC land economically sustainable. For example, risk of project failures and land abandonment
due to price changes should be taken into account. Financing schemes
for shifting production onto ULC land do not exist yet, but there are
conservation programmes like REDD+, which provide incentives to
conserve carbon stock on land and may be an option in the future also
for tree planting on ULC land.
As mobilisation of ULC land covers a range of issues and cuts across
multiple sectors and scales, leveraging existing programmes, instruments and tools (such as the above-mentioned REDD+ programme) is
necessary, but could also be very challenging. It is important to reframe
the simple idea of ‘planting a piece of ULC land with some crops’ into a
more complex scenario of (i) creating workable business cases (acceptable by different stakeholders, meeting local needs and conditions and
economically viable), (ii) formalising the land-use scheme (particularly
to protect the rights of all parties by e.g. empowering relevant authorities to monitor and enforce), (iii) providing long-term benefits for the
environment, and (iv) managing it sustainably with continuity for a
long period of time. Putting all relevant efforts in place requires collaboration of all relevant agencies, local communities, industries, researchers and civil society, as well as tolerance and compromise for
common interests by all parties.
An example can be drawn from the current study (see Table 3 which
includes some sample questions formulated based on the factors previously identified in the four regencies). Investigations on the factor
‘extra-local involvement and financing’ lead to the search for funding
options for cash crops, food crops and/or conservation, as well as
preferred business models by the funders to implement these options. A
potential risk, which has happened in the past, is the possible conflicts
between local and extra-local actors. In general, the cultivation of oil
the hierarchy of authorities. Understanding these factors requires understanding the relationships between different stakeholders and their
histories. One widely discussed institutional barrier to mobilising ULC
land is that a large area of ULC land has been logged and locked in the
‘forest zone’ and concessions, and is not legally available for utilisation.
These two types of factors may only be tackled with approaches with
certain degree of compromise that can be accepted by different stakeholders.
Given the limited number of interviews and group discussions, the
findings cannot be generalised for the whole of Kalimantan, yet we
deem them sufficient to identify the prominent factors of mobilising
ULC land resources in the four regencies investigated. Furthermore,
perspectives were taken from a diverse mix of land-use actors to cover
different aspects of mobilising ULC land. Combining and cross-checking
the comprehensive comments and detailed explanations from different
interviewees, it became clear that many prominent trends in the regencies have been captured.
While this study was based on narrative interviews in four regencies, it is important to investigate how these factors play a role in
mobilising ULC land in other regencies in Kalimantan as well, and to
quantify these factors so to better understand their implications. As an
example of such an analysis, this study assessed and quantified the labour availability factor for all regencies. Labour availability was found
to be a major limiting factor to mobilise ULC land in many regencies
with large areas of ULC land, as labour distribution is highly uneven
across regencies. The result of this analysis, however, is still uncertain
as it does not include the dynamics of labour mobility. Furthermore, the
analyses only estimated the labour requirement if ULC land would be
converted to oil palm cultivation under industrial management. Other
land-use options, especially those which require less labour, may fit
better into the mobilisation of ULC land in face of labour shortage.
While the labour factor was quantitatively analysed, it also requires
further qualitative understanding of the underlying dynamics of, in
particular, labour mobility. For example, the transmigration policies in
the past have triggered large fluxes of labour movement into
Kalimantan. This could have major impacts on the labour availability in
the regencies, but also on social and cultural conditions of the region.
In conclusion, there is a range of factors that significantly affect the
mobilisation of ULC land, and they can be perceived differently by landuse actors in different regencies. As a starting point, a comprehensive
local assessment of the opportunities and barriers to utilising ULC land
is needed to formulate practical and realistic land-use policies on a
regency level for mobilising ULC land. In other words, the policies must
be acceptable to the different stakeholders especially the local communities, economically viable for continuous implementation, and
minimising the risk to the environment. Instead of focusing only on a
single crop or end-use, as proven by this study, this has to depart from
analysing the specific conditions within individual regencies, especially
considering the views of multiple land-use actors on different land-use
options and business models. Therefore, it is crucial for future research
to connect narrative studies on socio-economic aspects to quantitative
land potential estimates which are based on environmental and agroecological factors.
4.1. Recommendations for future research
Future research on mobilising the ULC land resources in each regency is recommended to focus on the locally desired outcomes, which
could for example be economic development, food security, conservation/afforestation or a combination of all. In addition to identifying
ULC land and understanding the reasons of land under-utilisation, this
leads to the search of (i) available land-use options and (ii) business
models that can be employed to achieve the outcome. Opportunities
and barriers associated with different land-use options and business
models can be assessed by matching them with the key local factors that
influence the mobilisation of ULC land. This largely depends on the
208
209
Cultural factors
Land-use preference
Institutional capacities
Institutional factors
Logged and locked
Poor water management
Uncontrolled fire
Agro-ecological factors
Soil quality
Land fragmentation and
scale
Logistics
Extra-local involvement and
financing
Profitability, flexibility and
maintenance
Land trading
Economic factors
Labour availability
What is the effectiveness of water management of
different business models?
What are the preferred land-use options and business models for local people? Are they willing to adapt to new
land-use models?
How to utilise the ULC land in different types of concession previously granted (e.g. oil palm or timber
planting)? How to sort out the complexity of concessions and land ownership for the piece of ULC land of
interest?
Do the regency authorities have sufficient capacity (financial and human resources) to execute the land-use
policies?
Which option is more suitable in
terms of water management, and
can it be improved?
Can the soil quality be overridden by more agroinputs (thus higher investment) and improved
management, and still be economically attractive?
Which options are more vulnerable or more likely to cause fire? What measures can be practically used to
prevent fire spreading on ULC land?
What is the suitability of the soil for
different land-use options?
Is ULC land accessible? If not, is it strategic to build new infrastructure to access these lands, or is afforestation
a better option?
What is the physical continuity of the ULC land, and what is the suitability for large- and small-scale
establishment for different land −use options?
How much labour is needed for different land-use options and business models? Does the regency have enough
labour force? If not, is sourcing extra-local labourers a feasible option?
How profitable are different land-use and business models in both the short- and long-term? How economically
resilient they are?
–
Who own these ULC lands? Are the owners willing
to participate in the new land-use models?
What are the funding options for
What models would be preferred by these extradifferent land-use options?
local funders?
Will the new land-use models bring disadvantages to
the local communities?
How to avoid projects failures due to serious corruption
when extra-local funding is not properly monitored?
Will the land-use rights of local communities be
affected?
How will the efforts of controlling fire within a piece of
ULC land (e.g. planted with permanent crops) affect
(prevention of) the fire from spreading?
Will the management of water reduce/increase adverse
effects to the environment?
Will the use of agro-inputs cause more adverse effects to
the environment (e.g. pollution of rivers)?
Will mobilisation of ULC land trigger more
deforestation for speculation?
Will there be differences in opinions on land-use
options or business models between local and extralocal actors?
Will the construction of new roads trigger more
deforestation?
How does the use of small patches of ULC land
(surrounded by forests) affect deforestation?
If extra-local labour is needed, what will be the social
impacts?
Will there be risks of land abandonment in the future?
Risks:
What are the short- and long-term risks of selected
land-use options and business models
(environmental, social and economic)?
Land-use options:
What are the available land-use
options?
Questions to be asked for all
factors
Business models:
What are the suitable business models to
achieve the goals?
What would the regency like to achieve with mobilisation of ULC land − economic development, food security, conservation or a combination of these?
Overall questions for
individual regencies:
Table 3
An exploratory checklist with example questions to assess opportunities and barriers of different land-use options and business models.
C.S. Goh et al.
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
century of global discourse on land governance on the forest frontier. Forests 6 (4),
1301–1324. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f6041301.
Casson, A., 2006. Decentralisation, forests and estate crops in kutai barat regency, east
kalimantan. In: Cooke, F.M. (Ed.), State, Communities and Forests in Contemporary
Borneo. The Australian National University, Canberra Australia.
DG Estate Crops Indonesia, 2013. Oil Palm 2013–2015. Available at: (Accessed 1 April
2016). http://ditjenbun.pertanian.go.id/tinymcpuk/gambar/file/statistik/2015/
SAWIT%202013%20-2015.pdf.
De Foresta, H., Michon, G., 1996. The agroforest alternative to Imperata grasslands: when
smallholder agriculture and forestry reach sustainability. Agrofor. Syst. 36 (1),
105–120.
FAOSTAT, 2016. FAO Statistics Portal. (Accessed 1 March 2016). http://faostat.fao.org/.
Fairhurst, T., McLeish, M., Prasodjo, R., 2010. Conditions Required by the Private Sector
for Oil Palm Expansion on Degraded Land in Indonesia. Tropical Crop Consultants
Limited. The Prince’s Rainforests Project (Available at:). http://www.
tropcropconsult.com/downloads_files/Fairhurst2010a.pdf.
Fox, J., Fujita, Y., Ngidang, D., Peluso, N., Potter, L., Sakuntaladewi, N., et al., 2009.
Policies, political-Economy, and swidden in southeast asia. Hum. Ecol. 37, 305–322.
Gérard, F., Ruf, F., 2001. Agriculture in Crisis: People, Commodities and Natural
Resources in Indonesia, 1996–2000. Cirad, Montpellier.
Garrity, D., Soekardi, M., van Noordwijk, M., de la Cruz, R., Pathak, P., Gunasena, H., van
So, N., Huijun, G., Majid, N., 1997. The Imperata grasslands of tropical Asia: area,
distribution and typology. Agrofor. Syst. 36, 3–29.
Garrity, D., 1995. Improved agroforestry technologies for conservation farming: pathways
toward sustainability. In: Maglinao, A., Sajjapongse (Eds.), International Workshop
on Conservation Farming for Sloping Uplands in Southeast Asia: Challenges,
Opportunities, and Prospects. International Board for Soil Research and Management
Bangkok Thailand. pp. 145–168.
Gatto, M., Wollni, M., Qaim, M., 2015. Oil palm boom and land-use dynamics in
Indonesia: the role of policies and socioeconomic factors. Land Use Policy 46,
292–303.
Gingold, B., Rosenbarger, A., Muliastra, Y.I.K.D., Stolle, F., Sudana, I.M., Manessa,
M.D.M., Murdimanto, A., Tiangga, S.B., Madusari, C.C., Douard, P., 2012. How to
Identify Degraded Land for Sustainable Palm Oil in Indonesia. Working Paper. World
Resources Institute and Sekala, Washington D.C (Available online at). http://www.
wri.org/publication/how-identify-degraded-land-sustainable-palm-oil-indonesia.
Goh, C.S., Wicke, B., Potter, L., Faaij, A.P.C., Zoomers, A., Junginger, M., 2017. Exploring
under-utilised low carbon land resources from multiple perspectives: case studies on
regencies in Kalimantan. Land Use Policy 60, 150–168.
Gunarso, P., Hartoyo, M.E., Agus, F., Killeen, T.J., 2013. Oil palm and land use change in
Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. In: Killeen, T.J., Goon, J. (Eds.), Reports
from the Technical Panels of the Second RSPO GHG Working Group. Roundtable for
Sustainable Palm Oil, Kuala Lumpur.
Hadian, O., Wedastra, I.B.K., Barano, T., Dixon, A., Peterson, I., Lange, M., 2014.
Promoting Sustainable Land Use Planning in Sumatra and Kalimantan, Indonesia.
WWF-Indonesia (Available at:). http://www.globallandusechange.org/tl_files/
glcfiles/wwf/SuLu%20Reports/Sulu%20Report%20Promotion%20sustainable
%20Land%20Use%20Planning%20Sumatra%20and%20Kalimantan_Island.pdf.
Kompas, 2015. Bom Waktu Perusakan Hutan. News/Sains. 24 February 2015. (Available
at:). http://sains.kompas.com/read/2015/02/24/21223481/Bom.Waktu.Perusakan.
Hutan.
Laurance, W.F., Peletier-Jellema, A., Geenen, B., Koster, H., Verweij, P., Van Dijck, P.,
Lovejoy, T.E., Schleicher, J., Van Kuijk, M., 2015. Reducing the global environmental
impacts of rapid infrastructure expansion. Curr. Biol. 25 (7), R259–62.
Li, T.M., 2007. The Will to Improve: Governmentality, Development, and the Practice of
Politics. Duke University Press, Durham.
McCarthy, J.F., 2013. ‘Tenure and transformation in central kalimantan: after the million
hectare project’. In: Lucas, Anton, Warren, Carol (Eds.), Land for the People: The
State and Agrarian Conflict in Indonesia. Ohio University Press, Athens, Ohio, USA,
pp. 183–214.
MoF, 2015. WebGIS Forestry. (Available at: Accessed in March 2015). http://appgis.
dephut.go.id/appgis/download.aspx.
Moore, S., Evans, C.D., Page, S.E., Garnett, M.H., Jones, T.G., Freeman, C., Hooijer, A.,
Wiltshire, A.J., Limin, S.H., Gauci, V., 2013. Deep instability of deforested tropical
peatlands revealed by fluvial organic carbon fluxes. Nature 493 (7434),
660–663 (31).
Mulyani, A., Sarwani, M., 2013. The Characteristic and Potential of Sub Optimal Land for
Agricultural Development in Indonesia. Prosiding Seminar Nasional Lahan
Suboptimal Intensifikasi Pengelolaan Lahan Suboptimal Dalam Rangka Mendukung
Kemandirian Pangan Nasional. pp. 20–21 (Palembang September 2013).
Murdiyarso, D., Lebel, L., Gintings, A.N., Tampubolon, S.M.H., Heile, A., Wasson, M.,
2004. Policy responses to complex environmental problems: insights from a sciencepolicy activity on transboundary haze from vegetation fires in Southeast Asia
Agriculture. Ecosyst. Environ. 104 (1), 47–56.
Murdiyarso, D., Dewi, S., Lawrence, D., Seymour, F., 2011. Indonesia’s Forest
Moratorium: A Stepping Stone to Better Forest Governance? CIFOR Working Paper
No. 76. Center for International Forestry Research (CIFOR), Bogor, Indonesia.
OECD/FAO, 2016. OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2016–2025. OECD Publishing, Paris.
https://doi.org/10.1787/agr_outlook-2016-en.
Pirker, J., Mosnier, A., Kraxner, F., Havlík, P., Obersteiner, M., 2016. What are the limits
to oil palm expansion? Global Environ. Change 40, 73–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.
1016/j.gloenvcha.2016.06.007.
Potter, L., Badcock, S., 2007. Can Indonesia’s complex agroforests survive globalization
and decentralization? sanggau district, west kalimantan. In: Connell, J., Waddell, E.
(Eds.), Environment, Development and Change in Rural Asia-Pacific: Between Local
and Global. Rutledge, London.
Potter, L., 1997. The dynamics of Imperata: Historical overview and current farmer perspectives, with special reference to South Kalimantan, Indonesia. Agrofor. Syst. 36,
31–51.
Potter, L., 2011. Agrarian transitions in Kalimantan: characteristics, limitations and accommodations. In: de Koninck, Rodolphe, Bernard, Stephane, Bissonnette, Jean-
palm attracts the most extra-local investment as it provides the highest
economic returns. However, until now it has been dominated by largescale deployment, and only a small amount of financial support was
given to plasma farmers. Other major crops, i.e. rubber and paddy, are
dominated by independent smallholdings, but financing channels are
missing for intensification and expansion on ULC land. Other options,
such as agroforestry and carbon credit programmes, are currently
lacking financial support. If a regency aims to have a more balanced
development, it is likely that extra-local financing for small farmers as
well as conservation programmes are necessary.
In summary, a better understanding of the multiple local factors and
whether they are considered opportunities or barriers for mobilising
ULC land resources in a specific setting can help to provide more accurate estimates of the ULC land resources that can be mobilised and
can serve as a starting point for more informed decision-making on
future land-use. Comparing the pros and cons of different land-use
option and business model helps the individual regencies to capture the
benefits while avoiding adverse effects in environmental and socioeconomic aspects.
Acknowledgement
The research presented in this paper was conducted for the project
“Large-scale Investments in Food, Fibre, and Energy (LIFFE) Options”
funded by Department for International Development, United Kingdom.
We specially thank our tour guide Kornelius Agustinus, student assistants Bahroin Idris (IPB) and Kemala Indah (IPB), all the interviewees
and local villagers, local authorities, oil palm companies and other industrial actors who shared information and assisted us during the field
trips.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, in the
online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2017.10.016.
References
Abood, S., Lee, J.S.H., Burivalova, Z., Garcia-Ulloa, J., Koh, L.P., 2015. Relative contributions of the logging, fiber, oil palm, and mining industries to forest loss in
Indonesia. Conserv. Lett. 8 (1), 58–67.
Agus, F., Gunarso, P., Sahardjo, B.H., Harris, N., van Noordwijk, M., Killeen, T.J., 2013.
Historical CO2 emissions from land use and land use change from the oil palm industry in Indonesia, Malaysia and Papua New Guinea. In: Killeen, T.J., Goon, J.
(Eds.), Reports from the Technical Panels of the Second RSPO GHG Working Group.
Roundtable for Sustainable Palm Oil, Kuala Lumpur.
Ananda, J., Herath, G., 2003. Soil erosion in developing countries: a socio-economic
appraisal. J. Environ. Manage. 68 (4), 343–353.
Austin, K., Alisjahbana, A., Putraditama, A., et al., 2014. Indonesia’s Forest Moratorium:
Impacts and Next Steps. Working Paper. World Resources Institute Washington.
Austin, K.G., Kaibhatla, P.S., Urban, D.L., Stolle, F., Vincent, J., 2015. Reconciling oil
palm expansion and climate change mitigation in kalimantan, Indonesia. PLOS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0127963.
BPS Kalbar, 2014. West Kalimantan in Figs. 2014. (Available at:). http://kalbar.bps.go.id/.
BPS Kalsel, 2014. South Kalimantan in Figs. 2014. (Available at:). http://kalsel.bps.go.id/.
BPS Kalteng, 2014. Central Kalimantan in Figs. 2014. (Available at:) http://kalteng.bps.go.id/.
BPS Kaltim, 2014. East Kalimantan in Figs. 2014. (Available at:). http://kaltim.bps.go.id/.
BPS, 2013a. Land Area by Utilisation 2012. Catalogue BPS: 3311004. Central Bureau of
Statistics (BPS), Jakarta Indonesia.
BPS, 2013b. Agricultural Sensus 2013. Central Bureau of Statistics (BPS), Jakarta,
Indonesia (Available at:). http://st2013. bps.go.id/dev2/index.php.
BPS, 2015. Online database. Bahasa Indonesia. Central Bureau Of Statistics (BPS),
Jakarta, Indonesia (Available at:). http://bps.go.id/.
BPS, 2016. Inhabitants Aged 15 and Above by Provinces and Types of Activities One
Week Ago, 2000–2014. (Available at:). http://www.bps.go.id/linkTabelStatis/
view/id/975.
Baumann, M., Kuemmerle, T., Elbakidze, M., Ozdogan, M., Radeloff, V.C., Keuler, N.S.,
Prishchepov, A.V., Kruhlov, I., Hostert, P., 2011. Patterns and drivers of post-socialist
farmland abandonment in Western Ukraine. Land Use Policy 28, 552–562.
Budidarsono, S., Khasanah, N., Ekadinata, A., Rahayu, S., Dewi, S., Suharto, R., van
Noordwijk, M., 2011. Reducing Carbon Emissions Associated with Oil Palm
Plantations in Indonesia: Accounting for Greenhouse Gas Emissions over the Full Life
Cycle on Peat and Mineral Soils and Building Capacity for and Industry Response to
Emerging Environmental Regulation in European Markets. Research Report.
Indonesian Palm Oil Commission and World Agroforestry Centre, Jakarta.
Byerlee, D., Rueda, X., 2015. From public to private standards for tropical commodities: a
210
Land Use Policy 70 (2018) 198–211
C.S. Goh et al.
Francois (Eds.), Borneo Transformed: Agricultural Expansion on the Southeast Asian
Frontier. NUS Press, Singapore, pp. 152–202.
Potter, L., 2012. New transmigration ‘paradigm’ in Indonesia: examples from kalimantan.
Asia Pac. Viewpoint 53 (3), 272–287.
Potter, L., 2016. ‘How can the people’s sovereignty be achieved in the oil palm sector? Is
the plantation model shifting in favour of smallholders?’. In: McCarthy, John,
Robinson, Kathryn (Eds.), Land Development in Indonesia: Searching for the People’s
Sovereignty. ISEAS Indonesia Update Series, Singapore, pp. 293–320.
Purnomosidhi, P., Hairiah, K., Rahayu, S., van Noordwijk, M., 2005. Smallholder options
for reclaiming and using imperata cylindrica L. (Alang-Alang) grasslands in
Indonesia. In: Palm, C.A., Vosti, S.A., Sanchez, P.A., Ericksen, P.J. (Eds.), Slash-andBurn Agriculture. The Search for Alternatives. Columbia University Press, New York.
Rosenbarger, A., Gingold, B., Prasodjo, R., Alisjahbana, A., Putraditama, A., Tresya, D.,
2013. How to Change Legal Land Use Classifications to Support More Sustainable
Palm Oil in Indonesia. Issue Brief. World Resources Institution (Available at:). http://
www.wri.org/publication/how-to-change-legal-land-use-classifications-to-supportsustainable-palm-oil-in-indonesia.
Roshetko, J.M., Lasco, R.D., Angeles, M.S.D., 2007. Smallholder agroforestry systems for
carbon storage. Mitigation Adaptation Strategies Global Change 12 (2), 219–242.
Sandker, M., Suwarno, A., Campbell, B.M., 2007. Will forests remain in the face of oil
palm expansion? Simulating change in Malinau, Indonesia. Ecol. Soc. 12 (2), 37.
Shantiko, B., Fripp, E., Taufiqoh, T., Heri, V., Laumonier, Y., 2013. Socio-economic
Considerations for Land Use Planning: The Case of Kapuas Hulu, West Kalimantan.
CIFOR Working Paper No. 120. (Available at:). http://www.cifor.org/library/4349/
socio-economic-considerations-for-land-use-planning-the-case-of-kapuas-hulu-westkalimantan/.
Tacconi, L., Jotzo, F., Grafton, R.Q., 2008. Local causes, regional co-operation and global
financing for environmental problems: the case of Southeast Asian Haze pollution.
Int. Environ. Agreements 8, 1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-007-9057-z.
Tomich, T.P., Kuusipalo, J., Menz, K., Byron, N., 1997. Imperata economics and policy.
Agrofor. Syst. 36, 233–261.
Tyynela, T., Otsamo, A., Otsamo, R., 2002. Changes and alternatives in farmers’ livelihood planning in an industrial forest plantation area in West Kalimantan, Indonesia.
For. Trees Livelihoods 12, 257–281.
WRI, 2012. Suitability Mapper. World Resource Institute (Available at:). http://www.
wri.org/resources/maps/suitability-mapper (Accessed on 10 March 2015).
Whitten, A.J., 1987. Transmigration and the Environment in Indonesia: The Past, Present
and Future. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wicke, B., Sikkema, R., Dornburg, V., Faaij, A.P.C., 2011. Exploring land use changes and
the role of palm oil production in Indonesia and Malaysia. Land Use Policy 28 (1),
193–206.
van der Laan, C., Wicke, B., Verweij, P.A., Faaij, A.P.C., 2016. Mitigation of unwanted
direct and indirect land-use change −an integrated approach illustrated for palm oil,
pulpwood, rubber and rice production in North and East Kalimantan, Indonesia. GCB
Bioenergy. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/gcbb.12353.
211